Multi-round academic review of Chinese Master's theses (硕士学位论文). Uses a 3-round review strategy (macro → per-chapter → inter-chapter consistency). Acts as a strict professor reviewer, producing actionable revision comments in Chinese. Supports iterative version cycles.
.docx format
review_results.md exists in the working directory, iterative mode is triggered automatically (see Phase 1 § Prior Review Detection)
Round 1 ─┐ ┐
├─ (parallel or sequential) ───├→ Round 3 → Consolidate → User revises
Round 2 ─┘ ┘
Standard master's thesis structure: abstract → introduction → literature/theory → methodology → analysis/results → conclusion → references → appendices. No restriction on research topic, industry, or case type.
Non-standard fallback: If the thesis uses non-standard chapter names or merged chapters, map chapters by function: research problem → literature support → method design → results delivery → conclusion.
All review checklists use these labels. Defined once here; referenced throughout.
Extract plain text from .docx via Python:
import zipfile, xml.etree.ElementTree as ET
docx_path = r'<PATH_TO_DOCX>'
z = zipfile.ZipFile(docx_path)
doc_xml = z.read('word/document.xml')
tree = ET.fromstring(doc_xml)
ns = {'w': 'http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main'}
paragraphs = tree.findall('.//w:p', ns)
full_text = []
for p in paragraphs:
runs = p.findall('.//w:r/w:t', ns)
line = ''.join(r.text for r in runs if r.text)
if line.strip():
full_text.append(line)
result = '\n'.join(full_text)
Output to review_artifacts/thesis_full_text_. Create directory if it does not exist. Note paragraph count and character count as baseline metrics.
After extraction, prepare:
第1章, 第一章, 1 绪论)
After extraction, check whether review_results.md exists in the current working directory.
Not found → First-version mode:
Found → Iterative mode:
review_results.md to extract:
Key Principle: Separation of Discovery and Verification
To prevent anchoring bias (agent treating prior issues as a checklist instead of performing independent review), the injection strategy is designed as follows:
Round 1: No injection
Round 2: Two-phase per-chapter review
Round 3: Cross-chapter verification
Anti-Shortcut Rules:
Input: Full thesis text. (In iterative mode: NO prior issues injected — execute as first-version mode)
Focus: Bird's-eye structural and logical assessment. Do NOT give line-level edits.
Long-input fallback: If the full thesis exceeds stable single-pass context, read in large sequential chunks with overlap, then do one pass over all Round 1 findings to ensure cross-chunk consistency before outputting the dependency map.
| Item | What to Check | Type |
|------|--------------|------|
| Overall structure | Chapter layout logical? Chapters proportional? | [D] |
| Research question → Conclusion chain | All research questions answered in conclusion? Any silently dropped? | [D] |
| Logic flow | Each chapter leads naturally to the next? Logical jumps or missing bridges? | [D] |
| Terminology consistency (global) | Key terms used consistently throughout? | [D] |
| Theory utilization | How many theories introduced vs. actually used? Flag bloat. | [D] |
| Completeness | All promised analyses delivered? Limitations discussed? Future work? | [D] |
| Factual self-consistency | Dates, statistics contradict each other within the thesis? | [D] |
| Factual accuracy (external) | Do named facts match known reality? | [M] — flag suspicious values only |
| Section proportionality | Chapters too short for their function, or too long and overloaded? | [D] |
| Innovation & contribution | Are innovation points explicitly stated? Are they supported by the thesis body? Calibration: master's theses (especially part-time/professional) are NOT expected to produce high-level innovation. Applying existing methods to a new context or combining known approaches in a novel way IS acceptable — the key requirement is that innovation points exist, are clearly articulated, and are not fabricated. Flag missing or unsubstantiated claims, not low novelty. | [D] for whether stated; [S] for whether substantiated |
| Practice relevance (if practice-oriented) | Is the research grounded in a real-world problem or case? Does the thesis produce actionable recommendations, not just theoretical conclusions? Does it demonstrate problem-solving ability? | [D] |
| Abstract consistency | Chinese and English abstracts match each other and faithfully represent the thesis? | [D] |
| References (overview) | Format consistency, recency, relevance | [D] |
Output a chapter dependency map at the end of Round 1. This drives Round 3 pair selection.
Format:
章节逻辑依赖关系：
- 🔴 第1章 → 第5章：[依赖关系说明]
- 🔴 第3章 → 第4章：[依赖关系说明]
- 🟡 第2章 → 第3章：[依赖关系说明]
- ...
A → B = A makes a promise / sets scope; B should deliver or remain consistent
Input per chapter: Thesis summary block + current chapter full text + summary cards of all previously reviewed chapters.
Execution: Sequential, in document order. (In iterative mode: two-phase execution per chapter — see §2.x)
Focus: Detailed intra-chapter quality. Line-level issues are caught here.
First chapter note: When reviewing the first chapter, no prior summary cards exist. Skip the "交付" field in that chapter's summary card.
| Dimension | What to Check | Type |
|-----------|--------------|------|
| Data Consistency | Numbers in tables match text? Actively recalculate totals, percentages, and derived values from raw data — do not just check whether they "look right." If raw numbers are available, verify that reported percentages/scores are arithmetically correct. | [D] |
| Internal Logic | Argument flows logically? Claims supported? Logical leaps? | [D] |
| Methodology Rigor | Method selection rationale stated and internally consistent? | [D]/[S] |
| Quantitative checks (if applicable) | Statistical test choices, sample size, validity/reliability — apply only for quantitative empirical work | [S]; definitive judgment [M] |
| Literature Review | Research gap articulated? Key competing works cited? Gap justifies this study? | [D] for presence; [M] for citation accuracy |
| Citation adequacy | Major claims backed by citations? Unsupported assertions? | [S]; whether source supports claim is [M] |
| Language & Style | Typos, repeated chars (的的/了了), grammar errors (病句), punctuation misuse (中英文标点混用), inconsistent terminology, colloquial language in academic text, overly long/convoluted sentences | [D] |
| Factual accuracy (internal) | Dates/numbers consistent within this chapter? | [D] |
| Factual accuracy (external) | Real-world claims plausible? | [S]/[M] — flag only |
| Chapter Framing | Opening bridges from previous chapter? Closing sets up next? | [D] |
| Chapter Proportion & Function | Too short for its function? Too long and overloaded? | [D] |
Proactive expansion rule: When the thesis uses a specific research method (survey, AHP, regression, case study, grounded theory, etc.), the agent must proactively apply that method's academic validation criteria — not just check the generic dimensions above. The agent's own domain knowledge is the source for method-specific checks; the skill does not enumerate them.
See Appendix B for chapter-type-specific focus areas.
Applies only when review_results.md exists (iterative mode).
In iterative mode, each chapter review is split into two sequential phases to prevent anchoring bias:
Phase A: Independent Discovery (NO historical issues visible)
Input: Thesis summary block + current chapter full text + prior chapter summary cards
Output format (to review_working.md):
### 第X章 [章节名] - Phase A 独立发现
**审阅维度覆盖：**
- [x] 数据一致性：[具体检查内容，如"核算了表4.2共5处百分比，均正确"]
- [x] 内部逻辑：[具体检查内容，如"检查了论证链A→B→C，逻辑成立"]
- [x] 方法严谨性：[具体检查内容] 或 [N/A - 本章无方法论内容]
- [x] 文献引用：[具体检查内容] 或 [N/A]
- [x] 语言规范：[具体检查内容，如"未发现病句或标点问题"]
- [x] 章节衔接：[具体检查内容，如"开篇承接第2章结论，结尾为第4章铺垫"]
**独立发现问题：**
| 编号 | 严重度 | 问题 | 位置 | 类型 |
|------|--------|------|------|------|
| D-1 | 🟡 | ... | L123 | [D] |
*若未发现新问题：*
> 经独立审阅上述维度，本章未发现新问题。
Phase B: Historical Issue Verification (inject after Phase A completes)
Input: Phase A output + historical issues for this chapter (including relevant "全局" issues)
Output format (to review_working.md):
### 第X章 - Phase B 历史问题验证
**注入问题：** [#1] [#7] [#19-A]
| 编号 | 原问题概述 | 验证结果 | 说明 |
|------|-----------|----------|------|
| [#1] | Wilcoxon Z/p矛盾 | ❌未修改 | L1965仍为Z=-5.059, p=0.593 |
| [#7] | 研究问题未编号化 | ❌未修改 | L162-168仍为叙述式 |
**章节摘要卡（定稿）：**
[标准摘要卡格式]
Sequencing Rule: Phase A MUST be complete and output to working file BEFORE Phase B input is provided. The agent may NOT "peek ahead" at historical issues during Phase A.
Dimension Coverage Checklist Requirement: The checklist in Phase A must include specific descriptions of what was checked (not just checkmarks). This serves as verifiable evidence that independent review was performed.
Output after each chapter. Used by Round 3 for orientation and dependency map validation.
## [章节编号] [章节标题]
**核心论点：** 1-2句话
**承诺（本章对后续章节的承诺）：**
- [例如"将在第4章用AHP验证该评价体系"]
**交付（本章兑现了前序章节的哪些承诺）：**
- [例如"兑现了第2章提出的三层指标框架"]
**关键数据/定义：** 关键数字、术语定义、模型名称（供跨章核对）
**本章问题摘要：** 🔴🟡问题概览（1-3条最关键的）
During Round 3 setup, compare summary cards against Round 1's dependency map:
Conflict with Round 1: default to Round 2 evidence (per Core Rules § Conflict Resolution).
Input per pair: Thesis summary block + both summary cards + both chapter full texts. In iterative mode: also receives cross-chapter prior issues for verification.
Pairs: Merged from Round 1 dependency map + Round 2 summary card validation.
Output at end of Round 3:
章节配对审查覆盖情况：
✅ 已完成：第1章 → 第5章（🔴，研究问题→结论回应）
✅ 已完成：第3章 → 第4章（🔴，方法→结果兑现）
⏭ 已跳过：第2章 → 第3章（🟡，摘要卡无具体承诺/交付链接）
⏭ 已跳过：第4章 → 第5章（🟢，未进入本轮）
Purpose: Validate Round 2 Phase A "无新发现" claims through targeted re-examination. Provides a deterrent against superficial review.
Trigger Conditions:
A spot check is triggered when ALL of the following are true:
Procedure:
review_working.md
Limits (Cost Control):
Output Format (to review_working.md):
### 抽查验证
**章节：** 第X章 §X.X（L###-L###）
**抽查原因：** Phase A声明无新发现，但该章有历史🔴问题[#1][#5]
**抽查维度：** 数据一致性、术语一致性
**抽查结果：**
- ✅ 未发现Round 2遗漏的问题（支持Phase A声明）
- ⚠️ 发现潜在遗漏（需补充至问题清单）：
- [问题描述]
Integration with Final Output:
review_working.md only
[抽查补充]
review_results.md format remains unchanged (user does not see spot check details)
Full-text reading of both chapters is MANDATORY. Summary cards are navigation index only.
Long-input fallback: If a chapter pair exceeds stable single-pass context, read each chapter in chunks but ensure a final cross-check pass covers all noted data points and commitments from both chapters before concluding.
| Item | What to Check | Type |
|------|--------------|------|
| Terminology alignment | Same concepts use same terms across chapters? | [D] |
| Data/number consistency | Same statistics, sample sizes, dates consistent? | [D] |
| Scope alignment | Chapter B delivers what A promised? B introduces undeclared scope? | [D] |
| Cross-reference suspicion scan | Suspicious 图/表/章/节 references or numbering jumps? | [S]/[M] |
| Logical continuity | Transition makes sense? Logical gaps or contradictions? | [D] |
Cross-references are not a primary hard-check item — only flag suspicious cases for manual Word verification.
After all 3 rounds, consolidate into a single issue-centric document. Each issue appears once; originating round noted in brackets.
| File | Location | Content |
|------|----------|---------|
| review_results.md | Working directory | Final consolidated review (user-facing deliverable) |
| review_working_ | review_artifacts/ | Round 1 dependency map, Round 2 summary cards, Round 3 pair logs, all intermediate findings |
| thesis_full_text_ | review_artifacts/ | Extracted plain text from docx (Phase 1 output) |
Directory structure:
working_directory/
├── review_results.md
└── review_artifacts/
├── thesis_full_text_20260325_143052.txt
└── review_working_20260325_143052.md
Notes:
review_artifacts/ directory if it does not exist
YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS (local time)
In iterative mode, review_working.md must include the following sections to serve as execution evidence:
# 评审工作文档（第X版）
## Round 1: 宏观结构审阅
[依赖关系图 + 宏观发现]
## Round 2: 逐章深度审阅
### 第1章 [章节名] - Phase A 独立发现
**审阅维度覆盖：** [详细checklist]
**独立发现问题：** [列表或"无"]
### 第1章 - Phase B 历史问题验证
**注入问题：** [编号列表]
**验证结果：** [表格]
**章节摘要卡：** [标准格式]
[...其他章节...]
## Round 3: 跨章一致性审阅
[配对审查记录]
## 抽查验证
[抽查记录，如有]
## 历史问题验证汇总
[所有历史问题的验证状态汇总表]
Key Points:
De-duplication: Keep the most specific/actionable version of each issue. Other rounds noted as supporting evidence only. When merging related-but-distinct issues, verify they truly share the same root problem — two issues that share a topic (e.g., both about Chapter 1) but target different defects (e.g., tone vs. evidence gap) must remain separate entries.
Conflict resolution: See Core Rules § Conflict Resolution.
Coverage verification (mandatory before finalizing): Before writing the final output, confirm that every distinct finding from all 3 rounds is either included in the consolidated issue list, explicitly merged into another issue, or dropped with a stated reason. No finding may be silently lost.
Iterative mode — prior issue handling:
[部分修改])
[延续])
[新发现] in the problem list
Persistent issues: If the same issue has been flagged across 3+ consecutive versions:
Convergence criteria (assess and report in 总体评价):
Template instructions (do NOT include these in the final document):
review_results.md exists). Omit entirely in first-version mode.
[新发现] and the tag may be omitted.
# 硕士学位论文评审意见（第X版）
**论文题目：** ...
**学位类别：** ...
**评审日期：** ...
---
## 一、修订情况核查
| # | 原问题概述 | 原严重度 | 修改状态 | 评价 |
|---|-----------|---------|---------|------|
| 1 | ... | 🔴 | ✅已修改 | 数据已更正 |
| 2 | ... | 🟡 | ⚠️部分修改 | 第2章已改，第4章仍有3处 |
| 3 | ... | 🔴 | ❌未修改 | 仍缺失 |
---
## 二、本版问题清单
**排序：** 🔴优先，同级别按影响范围（全局 > 跨章 > 单章）排序。
每条格式：
> **[编号] [🔴/🟡/🟢] [延续/部分修改/新发现] 问题标题**
> - **位置：** 第X章 / 第X章→第Y章 / 全局
> - **来源：** [R1] / [R2] / [R3]（可多项）
> - **验证状态：** [D]已确认 / [S]疑似 / [M]需人工核查
> - **问题描述：** 具体说明，引用原文
> - **修改建议：** 可操作的具体建议
### 🔴 必须修改
### 🟡 强烈建议修改
### 🟢 建议修改
---
## 三、总体评价
### 优点（3-5条）
### 整体结论与修改优先级
### 收敛评估
---
## 四、审查覆盖情况
### 4.1 章节配对覆盖（Round 3 coverage log）
### 4.2 人工核查待办（[M]类问题）
- [ ] [具体项目]
---
## 五、答辩提醒（可选）
review_results.md
The following sections are reference material for the agent to consult during review. They are not execution rules.
Common dependency pairs for standard thesis structure. Use as starting point for Round 1 dependency map.
| Pair | What to Check |
|------|---------------|
| Introduction → Literature Review | Research questions fully covered by literature? Irrelevant literature present? |
| Introduction → Conclusion | Every research question answered? Conclusion claims within intro scope? |
| Literature Review → Methodology | Conceptual framework operationalized in method? Method justified by gap? Terminology consistent? |
| Methodology → Results | Every described method/instrument executed and reported? Undescribed methods appearing? Variable names consistent? |
| Results → Discussion/Conclusion | Every finding discussed? Over-interpretation beyond data? Statistical conclusions match data? |
Additional focus when reviewing specific chapter types in Round 2.
| Chapter Type | Additional Focus |
|-------------|-----------------|
| Introduction | Research gap specificity, innovation points clearly stated and not overstated, stated framework matches actual thesis structure |
| Literature Review / Theory | Theory bloat (describe 5, use 2), citation format, gap analysis → methodology link |
| Methodology | Rationale stated, internal consistency; (if quantitative) sample justification, validity/reliability, reproducibility |
| Results / Analysis | Table-text data consistency; (if quantitative) test choices, hypotheses; (if qualitative) interpretation grounded in evidence |
| Discussion / Conclusion | No over-interpretation, all questions answered, limitations honest; (if practice-oriented) actionable recommendations for practitioners, not just theoretical implications |
| English Abstract | Grammar, non-idiomatic phrasing ("Aiming at", "Firstly/Secondly"), keyword consistency |
| Appendices | Alignment with main text; (if survey) question design, scale coverage, response options |
共 2 个版本